HybridCars.com » ZEVhttp://www.hybridcars.com
Auto alternatives for the 21st centuryFri, 31 Jul 2015 13:14:21 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2California Raises Green Car Rebates For Low-Income Buyers, Cuts Off Top Earnershttp://www.hybridcars.com/california-raises-green-car-rebates-for-low-income-buyers-cuts-off-top-earners/
http://www.hybridcars.com/california-raises-green-car-rebates-for-low-income-buyers-cuts-off-top-earners/#commentsFri, 26 Jun 2015 14:24:48 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=314506Yesterday the California Air Resources Board (ARB) voted to increase state rebates to as high as $4,000 for plug-in electrified vehicles and $6,500 for fuel cell vehicles to better subsidize low-income earners, while also setting a limit on the highest earners. Those in a middle income range will see no changes to state rebates enabling […]

]]>Yesterday the California Air Resources Board (ARB) voted to increase state rebates to as high as $4,000 for plug-in electrified vehicles and $6,500 for fuel cell vehicles to better subsidize low-income earners, while also setting a limit on the highest earners.

Those in a middle income range will see no changes to state rebates enabling $2,500 for buyers of all-electric vehicles, $1,500 for plug-in hybrid buyers, and $5,000 for fuel cell vehicle purchasers.

The Robin Hood-like gesture followed SB1275, legislation from last year by state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León requiring the board to set income-level limitations for those receiving this state-level perk over and above federal tax credit eligibility.

The decision is a response to complaints that rebates – such as the present $2,500 rebate for buyers of all-electric cars like the Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S – were subsidizing the wealthy and doing nothing for those less fortunate.

ARB’s vote is effectively a $1,500 increase across the program for low-income folks. It raises a $2,500 EV rebate to $4,000, a $1,500 PHEV rebate to $3,000, and a $5,000 FCV rebate to $6,500.

What defines low income or upper income?

Low-income qualifications can be met by those earning 300-percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, this is capped at $73,000 reports the San Francisco Chronicle. For a single person household, it is $35,310 says Melanie Turner, public information officer for the California Air Resources Board.

Whether the extra $1,500 will help increase sales is being questioned.

The middle ground of those who make more and who are still eligible for the $2,500 EV credit, $1,500 PHEV, and $5,000 FCV credits is for those earning between $73,000-$340,000.

So, with the ARB setting the upper limit to those earning up to a third of one-million dollars per year, Tesla is not having its customer base overly targeted.

However, said Turner, higher income consumers will no longer be eligible.

“[T]he cap is based on both gross annual income and filing status,” said Turner referring to page 27 of the ARB’s Funding Plan. “The cap is a gross annual income of $250,000 for individual filers, $340,000 for head-of-household filers, and $500,000 for joint filers.”

Underlying these rules is the authority the Air Resources Board has to impose penalties and rewards as it sees appropriate to shift the emissions lower for vehicles sold in state.

Both all-electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars are zero-emission vehicles, but FCVs do refuel faster, and provide longer range in many cases.

A similar rationale by the ARB has been seen for its rewarding manufacturers more Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits for FCVs than EVs.

Toyota MIrai.

This is true even for cars like the 85-kilowatt-hour Tesla Model S which may travel 270 miles, and has a growing network of Supercharger stations, and is a state startup, no less. It’s been capped at four ZEV credits while FCVs are eligible for nine.

At the upper limit of EV pricing, Tesla’s nationally available Model S starts at $75,750. A Toyota Mirai, for now offered in only California is to start at $57,500.

Buyers and sellers of FCVs are offered the sweetest carrot on a stick to go FCV by the rule makers in California.

And, now, low-income buyers of cars like the Nissan Leaf may also get up to $3,000 For a Ford C-Max Energi, $4,000 for a Nissan Leaf, or $6,500 for a Mirai.

Whether these amounts will spur sales for these types of vehicles remains to be seen. Since 2010, California has handed out 110,000 rebates to qualifying car buyers.

]]>http://www.hybridcars.com/california-raises-green-car-rebates-for-low-income-buyers-cuts-off-top-earners/feed/0Does The $7,500 Plug-In Car Tax Credit Need Reform?http://www.hybridcars.com/does-the-7500-plug-in-car-tax-credit-need-reform/
http://www.hybridcars.com/does-the-7500-plug-in-car-tax-credit-need-reform/#commentsFri, 06 Mar 2015 17:30:10 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=263610Like any legislation brokered between stakeholders and lawmakers, the present federal tax credit of up-to $7,500 for buyers of qualified plug-in electrified vehicles involves compromises, pros, and cons. That it has been a boon to the nascent industry is widely agreed upon and proponents note that since December 2010 when just three plug-in cars were […]

That it has been a boon to the nascent industry is widely agreed upon and proponents note that since December 2010 when just three plug-in cars were for sale in the U.S. that number has grown to 21 and counting. But whether the system is as fair or good as it could be – or should be overhauled or dismantled altogether – has been contended.

Chief among proponents who’d like to see the system updated is President Barack Obama. This year for his proposed budget he again floated the idea of converting the tax credit to a point-of-sale rebate and raising the cap to $10,000. And, he added to these ideas he first asked for in 2011 by proposing incentives for more types of alternative-fuel vehicles.

This article – while only brushing on salient subtopics of a broad subject – relies in part upon an in-depth interview with a highly placed industry stakeholder who’s been involved with these issues from the beginning.

Favors Higher Earners?

Although all income levels may benefit, critics have observed the tax credit has often catered to higher wage earners.

Early adopters of the 2011 Chevrolet Volt – as just one example – had average household incomes of $175,000 and other plug-in buyers have been from the six-figure league.

The way the plug-in tax credit rules are now, buyers hoping to claim a full $7,500 tax credit tend to need a decent middle-class income. It can be well below $100k-plus, but the system has seen the relatively better off benefited and plug-ins are bypassed by “the masses” as an inexpensive “game changer” is hoped for in due time.

Of course there are other big reasons for this including battery costs hurdles, but with regard to the tax credit being an economic stimulus, there are two sides to this observation. Many have said that the current state of affairs is as it should be: of necessity new technology costs more, so it makes sense to sell products to those who can appreciate and afford it.

On the other hand, there’ve been those who cite Henry Ford and his Model T, and say the idea of selling affordable cars in volume, and making profits through raising economies of scale and selling more units is a better objective. Unless leasing the car, a tax credit instead of a rebate precludes lower income earners; it assumes one makes enough money to pay enough taxes to get the credit.

From a grow-the-market standpoint, if the idea of proliferating plug-in electrified vehicles (PEVs) is a rationale for a credit, say those in favor of a rebate at time of sale, wouldn’t that help put more people in more cars and speed the process? Wouldn’t that incentivize automakers to make more down-market products sooner?

So far, the first scenario is how the political winds and industry sensibility has gone, and this has possibly reinforced its sense of validity for many observers.

What’s More Egalitarian?

Arguments in favor of a point-of-sale rebate – such as 5,000 pounds offered in the UK, for example – would mean consumers would not have to front the money. They’d also not have to wait many months to over a year to get it back – assuming they do get it back and did not miscalculate. And a rebate would mean consumers would not be effectively penalized just because they do not earn enough money, it’s been said. Even retirees with money saved, but low income, are inadvertently penalized.

Effectively, the system is skewed to those with the income to buy a plug-in car at a premium over a roughly comparable internal combustion engine vehicle.

This has been said to defy one of the fundamental tenets of a so-called “economical car.” If the purpose is to save consumers money on the sale, it’s been argued that the ones with lower earnings are the ones who most need such a perk. And it’s been said if plug-in cars are meant to save on operational (fuel/energy) costs, likewise lower income people are the ones who need the breaks the most.

As mentioned, an exception could be if a consumer leases the car and the leasing company – which recoups the $7,500 credit – credits the lessee and lowers the payment. Nissan Leaf lessees for example can get the full $7,500 credited, and up to 85 percent do lease Leafs says IHS Automotive. But others, such as Chevrolet Volt lessees, do not normally get the whole $7,500 off of the lease deal and 49 percent lease the Volt.

The federal tax credit has been castigated as often as praised, and critical observers have pointed to Obama’s goal for the U.S. to be first to put one million PEVs on the road, and do it by the end of 2015.

Presently, there have been just over 300,000 PEVs sold and the U.S. is not on target, the administration has conceded. Reasons for why this is go way beyond whether the credit has been effective, but for his part, Obama has asked for a point-of-sale rebate and higher cap to help meet this goal.

Bipartisan Origins

The federal tax credit for plug-in vehicles originated with bipartisan support at the end of the Bush era. It was thus done in a Republican-controlled White House, but democrats including Obama did support it.

The first bill that allowed for plug-in cars did so two years before the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt were launched in December 2010. That was H.R. 1424, and subsequently with Obama in the White House, H.R. 1 amended the rules, reducing the dollar cap to $7,500 – it had been up-to double the $7,500 for certain types of vehicles.

Rationale For the Credits

The idea of propping up the plug-in industry built on the precedent of a lower dollar amount tax credit for regular non-plug-in hybrids that since ended in 2010.

It was recognized these and other alternative-fuel vehicles were good for American national interests and reasons supporting them were like a multi-legged stool.

It would be correct to say desire to curb controversial and politicized issues like “climate change” were part of it, but despite critics who focus on this to invalidate alternative vehicles, this was not the only reason.

This was how the consumer tax credit for plug-ins – one line in larger bills – was sold to both sides of the legislature once upon a time. Industry stakeholders – automakers, utilities, environmentalists and other interests – weighed in on what has become a measured compromise.

Briefly, “energy security” speaks to curbing dependence on oil – a global, fungible commodity. The U.S. does not have control of the market price of this commodity, and involvement in the Middle East, wars, and now terrorism have been blamed on geopolitical factors arising from this vulnerability.

By contrast, electricity is domestically sourced. It’s been said you will never see a supertanker pulling into port with a load of electricity.

As for “economic” benefit, plug-in cars are seen as new energy technology which nations of Europe, plus China, India, and Asia are also attempting to develop. The idea of America taking a leadership role in a technology with vast potential was appealing to lawmakers who agreed to incentivize the industry and consumers.

And with regards to “environmental” benefit, electrical energy is considered cleaner on a well-to-wheel basis – even when using coal and regulations are seeing the grid getting cleaner every year. So, not only is electricity domestically produced, it can be made by renewable sources like hydro, wind, and solar. Even if “climate change” remains a hot topic, say proponents, the fact that “air pollution” affects lives and entails huge costs is undisputed.

In short, before plug-in cars were castigated before the 2012 elections as the province of one ideological group, it was understood there was something in it for everyone, now, and for future generations. Thus, the up-to $7,500 credit was carried forth from the Bush era into the Obama era.

How The Credit Works

Contrary to any misconceptions out there, the plug-in credit is against one’s taxes upon their own earnings, and does not amount to welfare from other peoples’ money. News of an early Volt owner being harassed by a pickup truck driver asking how he liked the car the pickup driver’s tax dollars helped fund tell of this undercurrent still with us.

The base tax credit is $2,500 and above 5 kilowatt-hours taxpayers may claim on their IRS return $417 per kilowatt-hour not to exceed $5,000. This is how we get the “up-to $7,500.” It’s been an unsubstantiated rumor that General Motors had something to do with this and the cap was effectively 16 kilowatt-hours, the same as the first Chevy Volt. Cars with bigger batteries like the 24-kwh Leaf or 60-85-kwh Model S are still capped at $7,500.

Whatever the back-room talk may have been, it has been benignly stated that there was a “choke point,” and a cap had to be put on it in light of political realities – Congress would not have gone for more, and $7,500 was the negotiated limit.

Further, each manufacturer was allotted a threshold of 200,000 plug-in vehicles it could sell in the U.S., which will take several years, and so far the highest – Nissan and GM – have sold in the mid-70,000 unit range.

According to the IRS, after a carmaker passes 200,000 sales, following that quarter when this occurs, the tax credit phases out over the 15 months following and eventually buyers will not be able to claim a federal credit on that carmaker’s products.

Oil Subsidies

While true the tax credit does deprive the tax base of potential revenues, whether liked or not, myriad tax credits are a reality in the American political landscape that do favor special interests and political ideals. Globally, many other nations are incentivizing plug-in vehicles as well.

For those who disagree consumers should be even able to claim a credit against their own earnings, it has been documented the oil industry takes far more annually directly or indirectly than the entire plug-in tax credit system may cost the U.S. for the duration of the program.

It’s been estimated that the most the present plug-in consumer tax credit may cost federal coffers in lost tax revenues is $15 billion and this assumes that all eligible automakers sell all 200,000 per manufacturer and all consumers claim 100-percent of the $7,500.

This will not happen, as not all consumers are eligible for 100 percent of $7,500. So it’s expected to cost less, but by contrast direct and indirect subsidies to the petroleum industry have been estimated from $10 billion to $52 billion per year.

Further, these dollar amounts do not account for untold billions in costs for “externalities” taxpayers face because of the fossil fuel industry including climate/environmental, health impacts, and more.

Unfair?

Beyond the up-to $10,000 and make-it-a-rebate suggestion by Obama, others including lawmakers, business professors, and ordinary plug-in advocates of all stripes have suggested various other ways to tweak the system for equity and accomplish goals.

A core question from the beginning was what is the U.S. trying to accomplish? The U.S. does not have a unified energy policy. The flip-side of the it’s-not-egalitarian argument is the compromise legislation we now have was not done strictly for consumers, so the notion that we need to make things easier on consumers could be said to be somewhat one-sided.

Really, although consumer interests were considered, it was industry stakeholders who may have had a louder voice in framing the consumer tax credit.

And it does serve them. If you are Nissan or General Motors or Tesla, etc., you can advertise your respective car with a net effective discount lopped off. Your buyers may see benefit to them, and this is true, but you know it benefits you if they buy more of your product.

The idea from the beginning was to give a leg up to relatively expensive battery powered cars so the industry could grow. When H.R. 1424 and later H.R. 1 were written, assumptions of manufacturer battery costs were factored along with need to start educating consumers and marketing these vehicles against a 100-year incumbent – the internal combustion engine wedded to the entrenched petroleum interests.

So, some have said, a point-of-sale rebate, while nice for consumers, was not the only reason, and further, it may not be desirable.

One concern – among too many to document – is the present tax credit may be better than a rebate. A rebate it was said would be more difficult to administer, potentially more expensive therefore, burdensome, and impractical.

If a rebate were proposed, how would that work? Would dealers give the consumer the cash off, then apply to the government for reimbursement? Would the government then need to have a very large pool of money like a cash-for-clunkers program?

Such fund pools have been known to dry up, and it did cross the mind of industry stakeholders that the monies could go away before the mission of getting the industry on its feet was accomplished. By contrast, the up-to $7,500 tax credit which does not sunset lets consumers claim credits from their own earnings – thus no massive fund needed, or large program to manage.

As Things Stand

Whether that argument holds water for you, or more elegant solutions could circumvent and create greater equity, the president is a member of the minority party and the Congress and Senate have bigger fish to fry.

Aside from numerous reports on infighting and other budgetary issues this year, tax reform has been on the table for a few years now. Whether the plug-in credit is reformed before the tax code is overhauled is in doubt, say insiders.

Further, with the fossil fuel industry finding new legs with horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, “energy security” already being declared by some – plus other points of disagreement – many legislators cast a doubtful glance at the present plug-in tax credit.

Proposals to eliminate the federal tax credit have been called for in the course of overhauling the tax code, even as plug-in proponents might ask for more.

It’s been said if the tax credit were cut off, we might still see plug-ins continue, while others have said it could kill if not severely set back the U.S. market which constitutes around three-quarters of 1-percent share of the 16.4-million annual passenger vehicle market.

That the plug-in industry has benefited thus far is unquestioned. That reform would be welcome by some is also true, while even among some plug-in supporters, the idea of needing tax breaks has been called wrong on principle.

Further, automakers, it has been said, have had four years to get going, and California-rules “compliance cars” and slower than hoped for growth is a reality. Aside from a few leaders – notably Tesla, Renault-Nissan, General Motors and Ford being standouts – driving the industry as much as anything are tightening global, federal, and California mpg and CO2 rules.

So, it’s effectively been a whip driving progress as much if not more than the carrot-on-the-stick that is the tax credit.

Really the market is a nuanced multitude of variables with the tax credit being just one. Its help plus other drivers has brought the industry to where at least three if not five automakers could have 200-mile, mid-30s priced battery electric car by 2017. Meanwhile the Volt is the first PEV pending its second-generation, and many global automakers are doing more and momentum is increasing.

Pushed and pulled along against an entrenched oil-based paradigm, the plug-in industry grew last year in the face of declining gas prices, and declining regular hybrid sales.

So, would federal tax credit reform be desirable? Maybe. Or maybe plug-in advocates should be thankful for what they have in a world full of compromises, conflicts of interest, no guarantees of fairness, and politics as usual?

Or maybe not. This discussion could go on and on and there are more points that could be made than the few we’ve merely touched on.

]]>http://www.hybridcars.com/does-the-7500-plug-in-car-tax-credit-need-reform/feed/0New Tech Is Pushing MPG Up; Emissions Downhttp://www.hybridcars.com/new-tech-is-pushing-mpg-up-emissions-down/
http://www.hybridcars.com/new-tech-is-pushing-mpg-up-emissions-down/#commentsWed, 15 Oct 2014 02:38:32 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=205113We frequently hear of the “all of the above” approach made possible with an alphabet soup of technologies to improve mpg and emissions and over the last half decade new tech has risen markedly. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Trends report just released, powertrain technologies that once were rare are becoming increasingly common. […]

]]>We frequently hear of the “all of the above” approach made possible with an alphabet soup of technologies to improve mpg and emissions and over the last half decade new tech has risen markedly.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Trends report just released, powertrain technologies that once were rare are becoming increasingly common.

But despite the advent of all-electric vehicles, the majority of CO2 and oil savings from new vehicles is due to new gasoline vehicle technologies, only one of these being hybrids which comprise under 3 percent of new car sales, and plug-in hybrids at around 0.5 percent.

While battery electrification advocates look to potential “game changers” to shift the paradigm, and other voices say we’re on the verge of a protracted fuel cell roll-out, it’s the plain old gas engine that’s still doing the heavy lifting for Americans.

The average window-sticker fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the U.S. in September was at 25.3 mpg—down 0.5 mpg from August. This drop likely reflects the increased sales of light trucks and SUVs, but overall mpg is up 5.2 mpg since October 2007.

Except, there is not so much that’s “plain” or “old” about them. Unlike in Europe, Americans buy under 1 percent of diesel passenger cars, and while these are increasing, automakers are pouring their resources into a bag of tricks to clean up the gas engine’s act.

These technologies are so effective, they have allowed automakers to stall more-rapid development of electrification technologies. The U.S. EPA has previously stated only 1-3 percent of new cars need be the plug-in variety to satisfy 2025 federal requirements.

That’s a low bar to cross, and advocates hope to see more, and they may get their wish assuming California can enforce its ZEV rules mandating one in seven plug-in cars by 20125.

New Tech

Automakers are making engines smaller, more potent for their size, and less wasteful. How they go about teaching the old dog new tricks varies, but the EPA has highlighted progress for the last five years.

Two key engine technologies introduced more than a couple decades ago are variable valve timing (VVT) and multi-valve engines. These are nearly universally found on 2014 model year vehicles.

Technology Production Share for MY 2009 and MY 2014. Source: U.S. EPA.

GDI engines came along in 2007 as a rare technology, and by 2013, 30 percent of new vehicles had such engines, and the count for 2014 is expected to have 38 percent.

Another technology becoming rapidly more commonplace is turbocharging. Turbo engines have increased by five times the number that were sold in 2009.

Turbocharging is enabling the reduction of the number of cylinders, such as replacing a naturally aspirated six or eight with a potent turbo four.

However, automakers are also pushing the other end of the frontier with large V8s, and via turbocharging, achieving astronomical power output, with comparatively OK fuel economy.

Not to be left out in the powertrain equation is also the transmission. The percentage of vehicles equipped with six or more speeds and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) grew from 37 percent in 2009 to 90 percent in 2014.

2014 is expected to see CVTs and transmissions with seven-speeds or more account for 30 percent of new vehicles.

]]>http://www.hybridcars.com/new-tech-is-pushing-mpg-up-emissions-down/feed/0California: Hydrogen And Zero-Emission Vehicles Pushhttp://www.hybridcars.com/california-hydrogen-and-zero-emission-vehicles-push/
http://www.hybridcars.com/california-hydrogen-and-zero-emission-vehicles-push/#commentsFri, 01 Aug 2014 04:06:33 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=175009California is pushing even more for green cars and some of the state’s agencies are collaborating on a range of initiatives to support the goal of 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) said last week that the California Energy Commission carried out one of these initiatives, […]

]]>California is pushing even more for green cars and some of the state’s agencies are collaborating on a range of initiatives to support the goal of 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) said last week that the California Energy Commission carried out one of these initiatives, voting to use nearly $50 million to put in place 28 new, public hydrogen refueling stations and one mobile refueler by the end of 2015. The agency said the move was one of several actions designed to help achieve a key goal of the state’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) plan: to accelerate construction of hydrogen refueling infrastructure across the state.

“California is rolling out the carpet for Californians who choose these ultra-clean hydrogen powered electric cars and for the companies that make them,” said Air Resources Board Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “These private-public partnerships to build dozens of hydrogen fueling stations set the stage for hydrogen fuel cell electric cars to become commonplace on our streets and provide a new generation of long-range zero-emission vehicles for California consumers.”

The main goal is to help with clean air and climate challenges the state is facing.

“Making the transition to cleaner, lower polluting near-zero and zero-emission vehicles is a critical component to addressing California’s clean air and climate challenges. The transportation sector accounts for about 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions,” said Commissioner Janea A. Scott, the Energy Commission’s lead commissioner on transportation. “We are pleased to be part of this state collaboration and will continue to work diligently on standing up hydrogen fuel cells and other electric vehicle technologies.”

California working with many partners

The state’s effort to bring more fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) to the road and the infrastructure to fuel them features support from Toyota, station developers, the Fuel Cell Partnership, the Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission and GO-Biz, said CARB in a statement issues yesterday.

Honda has shown this concept signaling design intent for a replacement of its present FCX Clarity in 2015 or 2016.

GO-Biz is said to bring hands-on experience cutting through red tape, which will be used to get stations permitted and constructed in a timely manner. The Air Resources Board and Energy Commission said they provide the longest running state-level experience in the country when it comes to hydrogen vehicle and infrastructure development.

New money coming for hydrogen stations

Twenty hydrogen refueling stations have received funding from the Energy Commission and 28 more stations are scheduled:

There are currently 10 operational hydrogen refueling stations in California—the most recent opened in May 2014 on the CSU Los Angeles campus. With the announcement of Energy Commission funding for additional stations, California is slated to have 51 public hydrogen refueling facilities on line by 2017.

Two-hundred-million dollars in cap-and-trade proceeds has been allocated for low-carbon transportation projects, $116 million of which is slated for the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, providing up to $5,000 per vehicle.

CARB added to date the state has committed about $110 million to hydrogen infrastructure. This puts California on a glide path to 100 stations, the state’s goal for launching a commercially self-sustaining network to support a growing number of FCEVs.

Not only in California

A second initiative involves California joining two national programs organized by the U.S. Department of Energy to develop hydrogen infrastructure across the country, explained CARB.

Hyundai is ahead of Toyota and leasing its Tucson FCV this year.

First, the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Research and Station Technology (H2FIRST) project is led by the Sandia Laboratories and the Department of Energy’s National Energy Renewable Laboratory. By focusing on the national laboratories’ core capabilities, it is believed by CARB the effort will speed and support the widespread deployment of FCEVs.

The H2FIRST project will complement California’s second national partnership, H2USA. This public-private partnership brings together automakers, government agencies, gas suppliers, and the hydrogen and fuel cell industries to coordinate research and identify cost-effective ways to deploy infrastructure that can deliver affordable, clean hydrogen fuel in the United States, continued CARB.

East – West Collaboration

CARB added another initiative has California working with other states to harmonize regulations and building codes to ease the location and construction of refueling stations for hydrogen and electric vehicles. An eight-state ZEV Action Plan released last month lays the foundation to coordinate efforts among California, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island.

The goal of this collaborative effort is to put 3.3 million ZEVs on the highways in those states by 2025 with the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality and public health, while enhancing energy diversity, saving consumers money and promoting economic growth.

]]>http://www.hybridcars.com/california-hydrogen-and-zero-emission-vehicles-push/feed/0Top 10 Most Fuel Efficient Non-Hybrid Cars – 2014http://www.hybridcars.com/top-10-most-fuel-efficient-non-hybrid-cars-for-2014/
http://www.hybridcars.com/top-10-most-fuel-efficient-non-hybrid-cars-for-2014/#commentsFri, 27 Jun 2014 12:54:20 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=161793So you want to save on fuel costs but are interested in options other than hybrids? To help you along, we’ve compiled a list of various types of 2014 model year cars sorted by their combined EPA-rated fuel economy. Most are small, some are two seaters, but a few mid-sized cars are in the list […]

So you want to save on fuel costs but are interested in options other than hybrids?

To help you along, we’ve compiled a list of various types of 2014 model year cars sorted by their combined EPA-rated fuel economy. Most are small, some are two seaters, but a few mid-sized cars are in the list as well.

Some of these vehicles cost comparatively less than hybrids, others not so much. It also goes without saying that a buying decision should be based on other meaningful criteria as well, such as estimated maintenance and repair and resale value, safety rating, and more.

But here in the land of escalating energy costs, what you pay at the pump matters – and if fuel costs continue to rise, it will matter more.

Bear in mind some of these choices are selected for subjective reasons. Several cars do tie combined mpg-wise, but vary in city and highway mpg, and in other ways. So, we ranked one higher over the others if it is believed a more desirable car for reasons such as safety scores, or ownership experience, or because it is cheaper.

The government’s combined rating is derived from how the vehicle did on the city and highway test cycles.

If you’re planning to drive more in the city or more on the highway, obviously, that should play into your decision when choosing between two cars with equal combined scores that are rated respectively better in either city or highway driving.

We’d also be remiss not to mention that hybrid cars – not to mention plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and all-electric cars (EVs)– do cost less to power and would top our list if they were considered.

To learn more about all your options – including annual estimated fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and more, you could also consult the EPA’s fueleconomy.gov. We’ll link each car’s EPA score page throughout …

]]>http://www.hybridcars.com/top-10-most-fuel-efficient-non-hybrid-cars-for-2014/feed/0Eight States Aiming For 3.3 Million Zero-Emission Vehicles By 2025http://www.hybridcars.com/eight-states-aiming-for-3-3-million-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2025/
http://www.hybridcars.com/eight-states-aiming-for-3-3-million-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2025/#commentsFri, 25 Oct 2013 05:19:14 +0000http://www.hybridcars.com/?p=84681Pledging to cooperate in making their states as hospitable as possible to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), governors from eight states yesterday agreed toward a goal of 3.3-million electric cars on their roads by 2025 with an eye toward 2050 greenhouse gas emission targets. “[A]cccelerating the ZEV market is a critical strategy for achieving our goals to […]

]]>Pledging to cooperate in making their states as hospitable as possible to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), governors from eight states yesterday agreed toward a goal of 3.3-million electric cars on their roads by 2025 with an eye toward 2050 greenhouse gas emission targets.

“[A]cccelerating the ZEV market is a critical strategy for achieving our goals to reduce transportation-related air pollution, including criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), enhance energy diversity, save consumers money, and promote economic growth,” said a memorandum of understanding (MOU) by the eight-state coalition, “and … our states are committed to reducing air pollution, including the emission of GHGs and other air pollutants from the mobile source sector.”

Presently it’s estimated approximately two-thirds of all the oil consumed in America is used for transportation and 93 percent of the nation’s transportation depends on oil.

The states pushing to amend this reality with perhaps one of the strongest of numerous state-level initiatives promoting electric cars are California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. Sales data shows these eight states now constitute about 27 percent of the U.S. car market.

Several of these same signatory states in the 1990s also led the way toward tighter emission regulations on internal combustion cars, setting a precedent later followed by the federal government.

The federal government is now generally on board with ZEV goals, but less aggressively, notwithstanding the $7,500 federal tax credit for cars with a 16-kwh battery or larger – due to expire once 200,000 qualified plug-in vehicles have been sold by each automotive manufacturer – is the largest monetary incentive offered.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules however are able to be met with a mere 1-3 percent of ZEVs, as Administrator David Strickland of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said in June this year.

Thus far around 140,000 plug-in vehicles have been sold by all manufacturers and the states’ goals dovetail with federal goals to domestically source energy which is considered a national security issue.

The signatory states are now pushing for battery electric and fuel-cell electric vehicles. The word “hybrid” or “plug-in hybrid” was not mentioned in their MOU, but these are in other quarters considered part-time ZEVs – particularly the plug-in variety which depending on the model, may operate electrically for approximately 11 to 38 miles.

Looking at the GHG aspect of vehicles that offer several critical benefits, the MOU says “motor vehicles are among the largest sources of GHGs and criteria air pollutants” and the governors agreed to form a ZEV Program Implementation Task Force with a six-month goal to establish an action plan in making electric car viable.

A key aspect to this, the MOU said is, for the coalition of states to “work together to establish a fueling infrastructure that will adequately support this number of vehicles.”

The states said also they will lead by example in acquiring ZEVs for their own fleets, and the MOU calls for accountability to see it through.

“On an annual basis, each Signatory State will report, within available capabilities, on the number of ZEVs registered in its jurisdiction, the number of electric/hydrogen fueling stations open to the public and available information regarding workplace fueling for ZEVs,” said the MOU.

The coalition further reinforced the setting of the stage for an EV friendly environment, as it said of its inter-agency commitment:

As appropriate in each State, the Signatory States will seek to support and facilitate the successful commercialization of ZEVs and efforts to maximize the electric miles driven by these vehicles through actions such as promoting electric vehicle readiness through consistent statewide building codes and standards for installing charging infrastructure, developing streamlined metering options for homes equipped with electric vehicle chargers, evaluating opportunities to reduce vehicle operating costs and increasing electric system efficiency through time-of-use electricity rates and net metering for electric vehicles, and strengthening the connection between ZEVs and renewable energy.

Further, the signatory states will work to share standards, includiong universal road signage, and plans for payment for charging access as simple as EZPass is now for roadway access.

Looking forward to technological innovation, the states agreed to share knowledge and promotional activities as well.

“We will collaborate with initiatives, including Clean Cities programs, the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States Transportation Climate Initiative and the West Coast Electric Highway that are already working to raise consumer awareness and demonstrate the viability and benefits of ZEVs,” said the MOU.

Fuel cell cars are also a big part of it, and several manufacturers are looking to mid decade as a beginning point to launch such vehicles.

“The Signatory States agree to pursue the assessment and development of potential deployment strategies and infrastructure requirements for the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.”

While the MOU is among the most forward reaching and deliberate, it is actually one of numerous legislative initiatives at the state level for hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures, by July this year, 38 states have put in place high-occupancy vehicle lane exemptions as well as monetary incentives, vehicle inspections or emissions test exemptions, and parking incentives.

Financial perks include tax credits and registration fee reductions, and rebates or tax credits range from $1,000 in Maryland to $6,000 in Colorado.

The NCSL reported no less than 94 bills in 20 states are pending this year to encourage purchase and increased use of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles.